The Little Rock Board of Directors at a meeting Tuesday voted to adopt an ordinance stipulating that the city manager's authority to make payments unilaterally does not extend to legal settlements involving the city, after a recent police-shooting settlement sparked a dispute over whether the board had been given adequate oversight.
The ordinance was approved in a 6-4 vote.
City Directors Joan Adcock, Kathy Webb, Capi Peck, Doris Wright and Dean Kumpuris joined the measure's sponsor, Vice Mayor Lance Hines, in voting in favor. City Directors Antwan Phillips, Virgil L. Miller Jr., Ken Richardson and B.J. Wyrick voted against.
[Video not showing up above? Click here to watch » arkansasonline.com/1117lrboard/]
The decision came in the wake of a $300,000 settlement that ended litigation filed against the city and two former officers by the estate of Bradley Blackshire, a 30-year-old man shot and killed by then-officer Charles Starks in 2019.
City Attorney Tom Carpenter had objected to the agreement after the news of the tentative settlement was first disclosed last month in the court docket.
Under the terms of the deal, Little Rock agreed to pay the estate $49,500 through the office of City Manager Bruce Moore. The Arkansas Municipal League, which took over the city's defense and tapped two outside firms after Carpenter's office had to withdraw from the litigation in August 2020, agreed to pay $250,500.
At the time the settlement's terms were disclosed, the Municipal League's general counsel, John Wilkerson, said the $49,500 payment fell below a $50,000 threshold and that Moore therefore could authorize the payment without the approval of the city board.
"We do not know of any instance in which the Board has formally approved a settlement in which the City spent less than $50,000," Wilkerson wrote in an email to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on Oct. 11. "Because this proposed settlement requires the City to spend less than $50,000, we believe the Mayor and City Manager have authority to bind the City and settle this case."
Carpenter had said Moore's spending authority for payments under $50,000 did not extend to the legal settlement, noting the absence of a competitive bid, and further argued that the non-monetary components of the settlement constituted a policy matter that called for board oversight.
Members of the city board expressed concerns about the way the case was handled and suggested they had been left in the dark on the imminent settlement agreement. Kumpuris, an at-large director, at one point said the board had been "tricked."
Nevertheless, they voted Nov. 2 to give Moore the authority to execute the agreement. (Earlier during the same meeting, Moore had acknowledged that the agreement had recently been executed.)
The federal judge overseeing the case dismissed the claims with prejudice at the estate's request a week later.
The ordinance approved Tuesday amends city code to make it clear that the city manager's authority to make purchases and enter into contracts does not extend to the settlement of litigation in which the city or any employee is a party.
The measure says that prior to such a settlement, the city attorney or a representative must inform each board member, as well as the mayor, about the nature of the settlement and the right to discuss the settlement in a public meeting.
Earlier on Tuesday, an assistant to Municipal League Executive Director Mark Hayes provided Little Rock officials with a legal opinion authored by local attorney John Tull.
In the letter addressed to Wilkerson, Tull wrote that he had been asked by the Municipal League to author an opinion on the proposed ordinance.
He concluded the ordinance would violate the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, noting that the measure would give the city attorney or a representative the authority to meet and confer with each city director.
"While it would be argued that such a meeting between the city attorney and the directors is merely to 'inform' the directors it is obvious that the intent of such serial one-on-one meetings is to meet, discuss and have the individual director agree to the proposed settlement," Tull wrote. "Further, the proposed ordinance is contrary to the spirit of the FOIA and its laudable goal of transparency and open government."
In a follow-up email to city officials, Hayes said he had reached the same conclusion as Tull prior to engaging him, and he backed Moore's authority to settle litigation under $50,000, including matters with policy or practice modifications.
Hayes wrote that he had never been informed, prior to the Blackshire case becoming an issue, that Carpenter "called and polled board members to 'complete' a settlement."
He argued that the Freedom of Information Act prohibits polling officials with regard to a settlement. Hayes raised further questions about the proposed ordinance, noting the absence of provisions establishing who has the authority to settle a case and how a funding appropriation on the city's behalf would occur during a settlement.
Hayes later praised the work of the outside attorneys who represented Little Rock in the litigation.
"I think we can all agree the incident, the ensuing investigation and litigation have caused much harm to Little Rock and to city government," he wrote. "To be able to set the case aside allows you and leaders within the community to focus on solutions to make Little Rock better."
During Tuesday's meeting, Hines brought up the communications from Hayes but said he trusted the city attorney's legal opinion. Hines noted that Tull has served as an attorney for the Democrat-Gazette on Freedom of Information Act matters.
When asked by Hines, Carpenter confirmed that he believed the proposed ordinance to be legal.
Carpenter went on to say the ordinance does not "poll" the board and suggested that if it did, he would not have to call the remaining board members as soon as he got to six people who agreed.
A motion from Wyrick, who represents Ward 7, to table the ordinance for two weeks was defeated in a voice vote.
Likewise, a motion from Phillips to amend the ordinance to allow the city manager the authority to handle settlements up to a certain amount was defeated, 3-7.
MEASURES REJECTED
City board members at the same meeting Tuesday rejected two proposed ordinances sponsored by Phillips that would have bolstered the mayor's authority and ended at-large wards in favor of regional districts.
The current government structure, last modified as a result of a 2007 referendum that made the mayor a full-time position, includes seven ward-specific representatives on the city board as well as three at-large positions.
In addition to Phillips, those at-large positions are held by Adcock and Kumpuris, both longtime board members. Phillips, an attorney with the firm Wright, Lindsey and Jennings, was elected in 2020.
The first of Phillips' proposed ordinances would have initiated a citywide referendum during the 2022 general election on a proposal to transform the three at-large seats into regional districts that might overlap with one or more ward boundaries.
The ordinance on repurposing at-large wards was defeated in a 3-7 vote Tuesday. Phillips, Richardson and Webb voted yes, while the remaining city directors voted against the proposal.
Phillips' second ordinance would have empowered the mayor to hire and fire the city manager without the approval of a majority of the city board.
According to his proposal, city board members could vote to override the mayor's decision after the fact, but they would need a two-thirds majority and the request would have to be made in writing within 10 days of the hiring or termination announcement.
Additionally, under the ordinance, the mayor would be able to hire the city attorney with the decision subject to confirmation by a majority of the board. However, like the city manager job, termination of the city attorney would be left up to the mayor, barring a two-thirds override of his decision.
That ordinance was defeated in a voice vote. Richardson voted "present."
Versions of the two ordinances had been taken up by the city board in February 2020 after recommendations from a government-study task force that convened after the 2018 mayoral election. However, those proposals were ultimately withdrawn.